Introduction
Background of the study
Globalization trends significantly influence national competitiveness, prompting countries to prioritize the quality of education This emphasis on educational quality is crucial for enhancing school effectiveness and has emerged as a key focus of education reform Bottery (1998 & 2000) has contributed to this discourse by defining policies related to global trends and examining their effects on the professional values of educators, thereby offering a unique international perspective on educational policy.
Globalization has diminished the capacity of nation-states to maintain economic nationalism, leading to the understanding that a nation's future prosperity hinges on its international competitiveness (Brown et al., 1997) According to Bottery (2004), globalization is not a singular, cohesive force; rather, it comprises various loosely connected global trends that significantly impact the development of educational policies across numerous countries.
In an increasingly interconnected world, countries assess student learning through international surveys to gauge the effectiveness of their education systems in preparing students for real-life challenges By monitoring student performance rankings in these assessments, nations can track their progress against competitors and identify factors contributing to performance disparities (Sun, Bradley, & Akers, 2012).
According to Stevenson (2006), the promotion of accountability in education has evolved variably across countries, yet it now plays a central role in the global education agenda While cultural factors may uniquely influence policy development, there is a growing trend towards uniformity in educational strategies, largely driven by global economic pressures that transcend cultural boundaries.
Green (1999) notes, however, that while there is clear evidence of the impact of common global forces on education systems in Asia, Australasia, Europe and North
America and convergence around broad policy themes such as decentralization and accountability, “This does not appear to have led to any marked convergence in structures and processes” (Green, 1999, p 6)
The Performance Responsibility Movement highlights the significance of empowering schools, emphasizing the relationship between input-output effectiveness and student learning outcomes School effectiveness reviews serve as a vital tool for schools to assess their strengths and weaknesses, facilitating informed school-based planning and budgeting.
Edmonds (1979) identified key school-level factors that can mitigate the adverse effects of student socioeconomic status, highlighting five critical elements for school effectiveness: strong instructional leadership, high expectations for student achievement, an emphasis on essential skills, an orderly environment, and systematic student evaluations Subsequent research has expanded on these findings, with Purkey & Smith (1983) and Scheerens & Bosker (1997) providing more comprehensive lists of effective school characteristics Additionally, Roger, Gaby, and Sally (1998) introduced a broader perspective that encompasses a wider array of concerns, appealing to both researchers and practitioners dedicated to school improvement.
Growth in student achievement has been gaining acceptance as the essential criterion for assessing school effectiveness because learning involves changing (Teddlie &
Reynolds, 2000) In some of the American school effectiveness studies (e.g., Teddlie & Stringfield, 1993) there have been attempts to study the “range” or “dispersal” of teachers
In the UK, there is some recognition of differences between Departments, as noted by Sammons, Thomas, and Mortimore (1997) However, the focus remains on effective departmental practices rather than the school-level factors influencing them While the range of practices is acknowledged, the associated school-level factors are not extensively explored Additionally, the theoretical modeling by Creemers and Kyriakides (2008) examines within-school variation in terms of consistency, constancy, and cohesion, but it offers limited insights into the school-level factors that may contribute to this variation.
The current educational culture emphasizes a student-centered approach, prioritizing student learning and aligning with school goals Globalization is influencing educational research, necessitating a balance between local educational needs and international standards for practical outcomes In this evolving landscape, schools should focus on cultural professional organizations to foster a professional spirit, shift away from traditional educational mindsets, and continuously enhance student learning quality This approach aims to boost national competitiveness, improve academic efficiency, and support holistic student development Additionally, educational research outcomes must align with regional characteristics to effectively bridge globalization and localization.
This study examines the impact of Educational School Management (ESM) on students' science academic achievement across Indonesia, Singapore, Thailand, and Vietnam It offers valuable recommendations for principals to enhance educational quality, cultivate a positive school culture, and support teacher professionalism by addressing ESM challenges in these four Southeast Asian nations Consequently, a detailed analysis of the microscopic perspectives of schools and teachers is essential to establish the research motives.
(1) The school effectiveness issues change, it’s worth tracking and discussion
(2) Social concern about the educational quality, the school effectiveness improvement is more critical.
Purpose of the study
This study investigates the characteristics of effective schools, the factors contributing to their formation, and the levels of their impact, with the goal of establishing an Effective School Model applicable in Indonesia, Singapore, and Thailand.
This study aims to analyze literature to explore the characteristics of the Effective School Model, the factors contributing to its formation, and the levels of its impact in Vietnam The primary objectives of this research are to provide insights into these essential elements.
(1) To conduct a comprehensive investigation and analysis of the tenth-grade students’ PISA science academic achievement in four Southeast Asian countries;
(2) To deduce the theoretical model of effective school;
(3) To discuss the theoretical model of effective school can effectively predict the students’ science academic achievement;
This study investigates how both student-level and school-level factors within the Effective School Model influence science academic achievement among students in four Southeast Asian countries using hierarchical linear modeling.
(5) To compare the similarities and dissimilarities of the factors in the hierarchical linear modeling of Effective School Model impact on students’ science academic achievement in four Southeast Asian countries;
(6) To propose helpful recommendations for principals as well governments of these four countries can use the effective school model to improve educational quality.
Research questions
This study aims to analyze the hierarchical linear modeling of the Effective School Model, focusing on both student-level and school-level factors that influence student achievement The findings will provide valuable insights for school leaders and administrative institutions, serving as a reference for educational policy development The research is structured around four key questions to guide the investigation.
(1) How is the students’ science academic achievement in four Southeast Asian countries?
(2) What is a hierarchical linear modeling of Effective School Model in Indonesia, Singapore, Thailand, and Vietnam?
The hierarchical linear modeling of the Effective School Model identifies key student-level and school-level factors that significantly influence science academic achievement among students in Indonesia, Singapore, Thailand, and Vietnam.
(4) Are there significant differences between the student-level and school-level factors in the hierarchical linear modeling of Effective School Model among four Southeast Asian countries?
Significance of the study
School effectiveness and improvement are critical topics in education, attracting attention from researchers and practitioners globally Numerous studies have examined the Effective School Model across various countries This research uniquely compares the hierarchical linear modeling of the Effective School Model's impact on students' science academic achievement in four Southeast Asian nations The significance of this study lies in its novel approach and insights into educational outcomes in the region.
1 One of the significant findings from this study provides the opportunity to conduct international comparisons of educational performance and investigates the assumptions about the quality of educational outcomes in four Southeast Asian countries
2 The findings of this study can provide helpful recommendations for principals interested in improving the educational quality, shaping the school culture, and building a teacher’s profession by exploring the issues of Effective School Model in four Southeast Asian countries
3 The knowledge gained through this study has significance for the researchers in Indonesia, Singapore, Thailand, and Vietnam who are interested in the Effective School Model Moreover, the study results may be used by policymakers, educational administrators, and school teachers to enhance students’ science skills and learning experience in the similar cultural settings
4 This study adds to the insufficient body of literature regarding Effective School Model in Indonesia, Singapore, Thailand, and Vietnam.
Definition of terms
This study defines five key terms for clarity: "school effectiveness," which refers to the ability of a school to achieve desired educational outcomes; "effective school," indicating a school that successfully enhances student learning; "hierarchical linear modeling," a statistical method used to analyze data with multiple levels; "Programme for International Student Assessment," an international assessment that evaluates educational systems worldwide; and "academic achievement," which measures students' performance in educational settings.
School effectiveness should be assessed through a multivariate approach, utilizing longitudinal data on student achievement across various learning domains (Edmonds, 1979) An open-systems model best explains school effectiveness, as it accounts for the complex interactions between the different organizational levels and their external environment (Cooper, 2010).
An effective school study aims to identify the key factors that contribute to creating an effective educational environment The research highlights five essential elements: strong administrative leadership, a clear focus on teaching, a safe and orderly learning atmosphere, high expectations for all students' academic success, and continuous monitoring of student progress This study emphasizes the role of school principals in fostering a culture of high expectations and prioritizing student learning, aligning with Edmonds' (1979) definition of an effective school.
Hierarchical Linear Modeling (HLM), also referred to as multilevel analysis, is an advanced technique that extends ordinary least squares regression This method effectively analyzes variance in outcome variables influenced by predictive variables across different hierarchical levels For instance, students within a classroom exhibit shared variance due to their common teacher and classroom practices, highlighting the importance of considering these nested structures in educational research.
The Programme for International Student Assessment (PISA) is a triennial survey conducted by the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) to evaluate global education systems It tests the skills and knowledge of 15-year-old students, focusing on three main areas: reading literacy, mathematics literacy, and scientific literacy.
Academic achievement refers to the measurable performance outcomes that reflect how well an individual has met specific educational goals within instructional settings, particularly in schools (Steinmayr et al., 2014).
Limitation of the study
This study acknowledges certain delimitations and limitations that are essential to consider, clarifying its central purpose and focus while addressing outstanding issues The following factors and circumstances have been recognized as potential constraints affecting the research outcomes.
1 The study was delimited to a sample set of 15-year-old students in the four
Southeast Asian countries (Indonesia, Singapore, Thailand, and Vietnam) participating in PISA 2015
2 The study focused on exploring the impact of Effective School Model factors on students’ science academic achievement in each country by identifying and analyzing the response pattern through a variety of responses to the student questionnaire and school questionnaire
1 The impact of school effectiveness on student achievement was limited by the fact that the PISA database does not have information on student intelligence indicator
2 The study sample was limited only to certain PISA participating countries selected 72 countries participating in the PISA 2015 assessment, while the study sample consisted of only four countries in Southeast Asia
3 This study used the PISA dataset as secondary data for analysis with preselected variables and constructs It was based solely on the PISA 2015 dataset, and no comparison with previous PISA datasets was made
4 The findings of this study will not be able to infer other educational stages.
Organization of the dissertation
This dissertation is organized into five chapters, as follows:
Chapter 1 provides the general overview of the study, including the background of the study, the purpose of the study, research questions, significance of the study, definition of terms, limitations of the study, and organization of the study
Chapter 2 covers the literature review on Effective School Model, including the school effectiveness research, the effective school research, an overview of Southeast Asian education systems, and an overview of PISA
Chapter 3 describes the research methodology, including research design, sample selection, variables of the study, and data analysis methods
Chapter 4 reports the data and its analysis It also presents the discussion of four research questions as well provides the discussion of findings
Chapter 5 concludes a summary of the study, and reviews are drawn from the findings, conclusions, and recommendations for future research.
Literature Review
The school effectiveness research
Teddlie and Reynolds (2000) identify three key typologies in school effectiveness research: school effects research, which examines the scientific properties of school impacts; effective schools research, which combines qualitative and quantitative methods to explore the processes of effective schooling; and school improvement research, focusing on the methodologies of school change They also highlight the geographical evolution of this field over the past 30 years, originating in the United States and achieving notable success in the United Kingdom, the Netherlands, and Australia.
School effectiveness research is grounded in the belief that schools significantly influence student achievement (Scheerens, 1990) Successful schools are defined as those that enhance academic performance for their students relative to other schools with comparable demographics (Sammons et al.).
Research shows that schools with similar student demographics can experience vastly different educational outcomes, highlighting the impact of factors beyond student ability and environment (Raudenbush & Willms, 1995) This underscores the importance of comparing schools with identical social circumstances to understand the variations in educational progress.
The United States has experienced four distinct stages in the development of School Effectiveness Research (SER) The first stage, from the mid-1960s to the early 1970s, focused on the input-output model The second stage, during the mid- to late 1970s, expanded the research to include effective schools, considering additional school processes and outcomes In the third stage, from the late 1970s to the mid-1980s, various school improvement programs were integrated into SER studies Finally, the fourth stage, beginning in the late 1980s, is characterized by the incorporation of contextual factors and the use of more advanced methodologies.
Figure 2.2 Stages in the evolution of SER in USA
Recent developments in the field of educational effectiveness have led to the integration of various approaches, particularly through conceptual modeling and variable selection This integration has been significantly enhanced by multilevel analysis, which portrays schools as a series of interconnected "nested layers" (Purkey & Smith).
In 1983, it was proposed that higher organizational levels enhance effectiveness at lower levels, allowing for a synthesis of production functions, instructional effectiveness, and school effectiveness by integrating key variables from each domain at appropriate school function levels This integrative perspective led to the development of conceptual models by Scheerens (1990), Creemers (1994), and Heneveld and Craig (1996), which encompassed the school environment, school organization and management, classroom dynamics, and individual student levels.
The Scheerens model, depicted in Figure 2.3, serves as a foundational framework for multilevel analyses, illustrating how specific school inputs and contextual factors interact with school and classroom-level processes to influence student achievement, while accounting for student background factors (Scheerens, 1990) This model's constructs are derived from multiple meta-analyses of contemporary research on school effectiveness.
Figure 2.3 An integrated model of school effectiveness
Creemers' model of school effectiveness, illustrated in Figure 2.4, identifies key hierarchical variables that promote learning time, enhance learning quality, and provide learning opportunities Factors such as an orderly atmosphere, clarity of presentation, and curriculum-test alignment are crucial in influencing student achievement, alongside student background factors (Creemers, 1994).
Figure 2.4 Basic model of educational effectiveness
Heneveld and Craig (1996) proposed a model illustrating how school inputs and student backgrounds interact with various school-level and classroom-level factors to influence student outcomes This model is grounded in a comprehensive literature review of school effectiveness studies conducted in developing countries.
Figure 2.5 Factors that determine school effectiveness
OECD (1998) developed a set of indicators with the purpose of comparing different aspects of schooling among countries In the project of International Indicators of
Between 1988 and 1991, the Educational Systems (INES) developed a conceptual map that allows countries to compare their educational performance, as illustrated in Figure 2.6 (Wendel, 2000) The OECD framework has been employed in PISA surveys to explore three key aspects of education: effective teaching and instruction, organizational characteristics of schools, and the resources available to them (Wendel, 2000; Schreens, 1990).
Figure 2.6 OECD’s Conceptual Map of Educational Indicators
Extensive research on school effectiveness has examined the relationship between school performance and student outcomes, encompassing both cognitive and non-cognitive aspects (Teddlie & Reynolds, 2000) While a significant body of evidence indicates that school-based factors positively impact student learning achievement, some studies reveal a lack of statistically significant or weak correlations between these variables.
Evaluating school effectiveness typically focuses on student achievement and learning, but various models emphasize the complexity of this concept, as noted by researchers like Creemers (1994) and Scott (1997) Key factors influencing school effectiveness include headteacher leadership, supported by studies from Purkey and Smith (1983) and Scheerens (1992) This research does not suggest shifting attention from student learning to headteacher job satisfaction; rather, it offers a new perspective on the headteacher's role by examining job satisfaction and work-related stress as critical indicators Literature indicates a relationship between these variables and school effectiveness (Borg & Riding, 1993; Carr, 1993) Headteachers and school leadership are believed to have an indirect impact on school effectiveness (Hallinger & Heck, 1996b), particularly during educational changes like school autonomy reforms, highlighting the need to consider headteacher-related indicators in discussions of school effectiveness.
Hierarchical linear modeling has enhanced the consistency of SER results, demonstrating that school effectiveness significantly influences student outcomes, including absenteeism and dropout rates (Smyth, 1999a).
(Smyth, 1999a; Rumberger, 1995), academic attainment (Smyth, 1999b), and mathematics literacy (Hill & Rowe, 1999; Lee, 2000; Stemler, 2001) A summary of some empirical studies on school research in Table 2.1 (Tang, 2016)
A summary of some empirical studies on school research
Year Author Methods and data Main findings
American studies and British studies
Different characteristics of the learning environment of schools appeared to vary in effectiveness
A literature review by Hanushek in 1986 highlights that while schools significantly influence student performance, there is insufficient evidence to support the notion that factors such as teacher-student ratios, teacher education, or teacher experience positively impact student achievement Additionally, the review indicates a lack of consistent correlation between school expenditures and student performance.
1989 Cahan and Cohen Experimental study; 11,099 fourth, fifth, and sixth grade students in Israel
The school effects on most skills outweighed the effects of age
1995 Rumberger Using data from the
National Educational Longitudinal Survey of
Restricting the analysis to lower SES schools shows widespread differences in both mean dropout rates and social class differentiation
In 1988, a new approach to hierarchical linear modeling (HLM) emerged, highlighting that variations among schools can largely be attributed to the social composition of students and various structural characteristics of the schools and their climates.
Two meta-analytic methods-combined significance testing and effect magnitude estimation-were employed in the analyses; Data from
60 primary research studies are aggregated
The effective school research
An effective school is marked by high overall student achievement, with minimal gaps among major student subgroups Such schools are founded on high expectations, strong leadership, a commitment to inclusive learning, collaboration, differentiated instruction, and regular monitoring of student progress (Lezotte & Snyder, 2011) These elements collectively define the essence of an effective school.
1 The learning-for-all mission
A shared commitment to the learning-for-all mission among all school stakeholders is essential for sustained success in teaching and learning This collective belief unites administration, faculty, support staff, students, and the community, emphasizing that everyone plays a vital role in enhancing student achievement The learning-for-all mission embodies the passion that drives effective schools (McKenzie & Scheurich, 2008).
Embracing the effective school concept requires educators, policymakers, and stakeholders to address critical questions regarding the collection and communication of educational results Key considerations include which results to gather, the methods for collection, the timing of data collection, and the decision-making process Transparency in these decisions is essential, ensuring that all stakeholders understand the implications for teaching and learning This openness is a fundamental aspect of effective instructional leadership.
The twin pillars of public education—quality and equity—are essential to the principle of learning for all and should be addressed together According to Ravitch (1985), the connection between quality and equality is inseparable Every child in public schools deserves both a high-quality education and equal access to educational opportunities.
The effective school movement has leveraged research to pinpoint schools that embody the characteristics of effective education (Purkey & Smith, 1983) Various inquiry methods have been employed to identify these schools, analyze their operational practices, and assess the impact on student outcomes Understanding the methodological approaches is crucial for grasping the effective school's research and building trust in its conclusions (Clarke & Wildy, 2010) After over four decades of research, effective school studies can be categorized into four distinct phases of development.
Lezotte's early research in 1974 emerged as a response to the contentious 1966 Coleman Report, which asserted that family background significantly influenced student achievement Between 1974 and 1976, Lezotte and Brookover analyzed eight Michigan elementary schools, pinpointing factors that contributed to either improvement or decline in school performance A key discovery revealed that staff in declining schools held low expectations of their students' capabilities, whereas those in improving schools maintained a positive outlook on student potential.
Reynolds, Jones, and Leger (1976) conducted a study examining the relationship between students' prior academic performance, family background, attendance, and behavioral deviations to assess school effectiveness Their findings identified key factors contributing to effective schools, highlighting the importance of these variables in academic achievement.
1 There are high school student solidarity, active participation in school affairs;
2 Students less interference school management control;
3 School for student achievement positive expectations;
4 Reduce the student’s peremptory norms, such as clothing, grooming, hair and the like;
5 Students are actively involved in school community activities
The early studies that focused on identifying effective schools sparked significant interest among researchers, leading to a pivotal transition into the second major phase of the movement, known as the description phase.
In his 1979 study, Edmonds aimed to identify effective instructional practices for poor and minority children, revealing that performance disparities between effective and ineffective schools were not linked to students' social class or family background The research highlighted that all 55 effective schools shared common traits, including high expectations and a focus on curiosity, irrespective of students' environmental conditions Additionally, the study emphasized the importance of curriculum design, teaching materials, and appropriate teaching techniques in relation to a child's family background Edmonds proposed five key factors that contribute to effective schooling.
2 An emphasis upon basic skill acquisition;
3 An orderly climate that facilitated learning;
4 High expectations of what students would achieve;
5 Frequent monitoring of the progress of students
Rutter, Maughan, Mortimore, and Ouston (1979) in London also found that effective school has the following factors in their school history:
1 Full use of positive enhancement and appreciation;
3 A high requirement for student responsibility;
4 Give students stress through homework and clear academic goals and high expectations;
5 Teachers provide good behavior model;
6 Effective classroom management, such as full lesson preparation, requiring classroom discipline and reduce learning interference
7 Teachers participate in the positive leadership model
Rutter et al (1979) conclude that some schools were demonstrably better than others at promoting the academic and social success of their students
In the 1980s, research on effective schools outlined an ideal vision for educational environments but offered limited guidance on achieving this vision Earlier studies on effective schools highlighted various approaches to conceptualizing school improvement, each leading to different, yet interconnected bodies of research that support one another (Edmonds, 1982; Good & Brophy, 1991; Levine & Lezotte, 1990).
Michigan State University, in collaboration with research on effective schools and teaching, invited over 100 school districts across 21 schools in Michigan to engage in a school improvement program (Edmonds, 1979) Regardless of the specific improvement strategies employed, participating schools must be adequately staffed, organized, and strategically planned to facilitate meaningful change To achieve successful transformation among school members, three key elements are essential (Edmonds, 1982).
1 Change is a continuous process, not just a single event;
2 The change depends on the continued commitment of all members;
3 Leaders must clarify the vision and provide support
Recent school effectiveness research, particularly in England, the USA, and the Netherlands, has highlighted key findings from a significant study conducted by Mortimore, Sammons, Stoll, Lewis, and Ecob (1988) Over four years, the researchers examined the academic and social progress of 2,000 primary children across fifty randomly selected schools in London Their findings identified specific characteristics that define an effective school, particularly those that excel in both academic and social outcomes.
1 The purposeful leadership of the staff by the headteacher;
2 The involvement of the deputy in policy decision making and of the teaching staff in curriculum planning and certain areas of decision making;
3 Staff consistency in the approach to teaching, intellectually challenging teaching, structured sessions that nevertheless allowed students some freedom within the structure, and a limited focus on sessions;
4 A work-centered environment, where there was the maximum communication between teachers and students;
5 Sound record-keeping procedures, effective monitoring of progress;
6 Parental involvement in schools which encouraged an open door policy;
Significant research in the USA, particularly the Louisiana School Effectiveness Study (Mortimore et al., 1988), aimed to uncover the key differences between effective and ineffective schools, with findings that largely confirmed and supported previous studies.
The effective-school movement primarily focuses on identifying the organizational factors that define successful schools According to Schein (1985), the term 'effective' has various meanings, which Hopkins, Ainscow, and West (1994) have elaborated upon with pertinent examples.
1 Observed behavioral regularities when teachers interact in a staffroom—the language they use and the rituals they establish;
2 The norms that evolve in working groups of teachers concerning lesson planning or monitoring the progress of students;
3 The dominant values espoused by a school;
4 The philosophy that, for example, guides the dominant approach to teaching and learning;
5 The rules of the game that new teachers have to learn to get along in the school or their department;
6 The feeling or climate that is conveyed by the entrance hall to a school, or the way in which students’ work is or is not displayed
A comprehensive approach to school improvement is essential, as existing models, including those presented by Hopkins et al (1994), are inadequate on their own This holistic strategy must integrate organizational factors, process elements, and the cultural dynamics of effective schools Restructuring serves as a framework to assess the complete scope of change management within educational institutions.
Overview of Southeast Asian education systems
The Republic of Indonesia, a diverse archipelago of approximately 17,000 islands located along the equator between Asia and Australia, is home to around 261.5 million people, making it the world's fourth most populous nation With five principal islands—Sumatera, Java, Kalimantan, Sulawesi, and Papua—Indonesia boasts a rich tapestry of about 3,000 ethnic groups Despite the revision of its education law in 1989 to establish a nine-year basic education cycle, the Indonesian education system continues to face significant challenges in policy implementation, instruction quality, and student achievement.
The Indonesian national education system is structured into three main levels: basic education, secondary education, and higher education Basic education comprises six years of elementary school and three years of junior secondary school, collectively known as "Nine-year Compulsory Education" since 1994 (Firman & Tola, 2008) Following this, secondary education includes three years of study at either general or vocational senior secondary schools (Firman & Tola, 2008).
Indonesia boasts around 170,000 elementary schools, 35,000 junior high schools, 20,000 general senior secondary schools, and 6,000 vocational senior secondary schools, catering to approximately 30 million elementary students, 10 million junior secondary students, 4.3 million general senior secondary students, and 2.3 million vocational secondary students.
Over the past 35 years, the number of schools has surged by 4.2 times, leading to significant improvements in education access As a result, the net enrolment ratio (NER) has reached 94.30% in elementary schools, 62.06% in junior secondary schools, and 42.64% in both general and vocational senior secondary schools (MoEC, 2006).
Figure 2.10 Overview of Indonesia Education
The education system is managed by two ministries: the Ministry of Education and Culture (MoEC), overseeing 84% of schools, and the Ministry of Religious Affairs (MoRA), which manages the remaining 16% While private schools constitute only 7% of primary education, their presence grows significantly at higher levels, with 56% in junior secondary and 67% in senior secondary education In poorer districts, primary school net enrollment rates fall below 60%, contrasting sharply with wealthier districts that achieve universal enrollment, as reported by the World Bank in 2010 Meanwhile, net enrollment rates for secondary education are on the rise, currently reaching 66% in junior secondary and 45% in senior secondary.
Senior Secondary) but are still low compared to other countries in the region (World Bank,
2010) Indonesia is also trailing behind its neighbors in Early Childhood Education and Higher Education, with gross enrollment rates of 21% and 11.5% respectively (World Bank, 2014)
Indonesia's educational system is structured as an interdependent series of cycles designed to meet the diverse needs of its geographically dispersed population, which experiences significant variations in socio-economic status and opportunities.
Islamic General Senior Secondary School
Islamic Vocational Senior Secondary School
Islamic General Junior Secondary School
In Singapore, every child has the opportunity to complete a minimum of ten years of general education, with dropout rates falling below 1% The education system includes a national examination at the conclusion of primary education, ensuring a standardized assessment of student achievement.
Secondary school graduates have various educational pathways available to them, including junior colleges, which typically require 2 to 3 years of study, and polytechnics or the Institute of Technical Education, which offer diverse non-academic progression options (MoE, 2015).
In recent years, the education system has evolved to become more porous, flexible, and diverse, offering students increased choice throughout their educational journey After primary education, students can select from a wider array of schools and programs tailored to their unique strengths and interests Additionally, bridging programs facilitate transfers between parallel courses, enhancing educational pathways To acknowledge a broader spectrum of student achievements and talents, secondary schools, junior colleges, polytechnics, and universities now have the flexibility to admit a portion of their students based on transparent and meritocratic school-based criteria through direct or discretionary admissions.
Singapore, recognized as one of the four Asian Tigers, has experienced significant economic growth since gaining independence in 1965 The city-state has garnered global attention for its students' outstanding performance in international assessments such as TIMSS and PISA Recent rankings from the OECD highlight Singapore's top position in mathematics and science achievement, underscoring its commitment to educational excellence.
Primary education is structured into a four-year foundation stage (Grades I-IV) and a two-year orientation stage (Grades V and VI), aiming to provide children with a strong understanding of English, their mother tongue (Chinese, Malay, or Tamil), and mathematics Students are encouraged to engage in Co-curricular Activities (CCAs) and the Community Involvement Programme (CIP) During the orientation stage, students can choose from three language streams: EM1, EM2, and EM3 In Primary 5, they can select a mix of standard and foundation subjects based on their abilities The Primary School Leaving Examination (PSLE) at the end of Primary 6 evaluates students' readiness for secondary education and determines their placement in suitable courses, including Special, Express, and Normal tracks.
In response to the growing impact of globalization and the need to boost economic competitiveness, Singapore is actively reviewing and enhancing its education system The nation aims to establish itself as an educational hub in Asia, positioning itself as a leading provider of educational services in the Asia Pacific region and beyond.
Thailand, home to 67 million people, is divided into five regions: the South, Northeast, North, Central Region, and Bangkok Currently, about 50% of the population resides in urban areas, with projections indicating that this figure could exceed 70% by 2050, according to UNDESA.
Thailand's ethnic and religious diversity is shaped by its geographical location between South and East Asia While the majority of the population is ethnically Thai, notable minority groups include individuals of Chinese descent and Malay Muslims in the southern region Additionally, various hill tribes inhabit the northern mountainous areas, each possessing unique languages and cultures.
Ongoing conflicts between the government and insurgent groups in the southern region have disrupted education provision and left many children out of school
Since 1999, formal education has been categorized into basic and higher (tertiary) education, with basic education being provided free of charge This includes pre-primary, primary, and secondary levels, where compulsory education begins at age six and lasts for nine years, covering primary schooling (grades P1-6) and lower secondary education (grades M1-3).
Overview of PISA
The Programme for International Student Assessment (PISA) is one of the international studies, conducted by the Organization for Economic Co-operation and
The Programme for International Student Assessment (PISA), developed by the OECD in 1997, evaluates the literacy in mathematics, science, and reading of 15-year-old students Conducted every three years since 2000, PISA aims to assess students' preparedness to face the challenges of modern knowledge societies.
The OECD's PISA assessment, developed in 1997 and conducted every three years since 2000, evaluates the literacy of 15-year-old students in mathematics, science, and reading This test aims to gauge students' preparedness to face the challenges of modern knowledge societies The focal domains of each PISA round are detailed in the accompanying table.
Schedule of PISA assessments (cognitive domains)
Reading major minor minor major minor minor
Mathematics minor major minor minor major minor
Science minor minor major minor minor major
The results from PISA surveys in which Indonesia, Singapore, Thailand, and Vietnam have participated for Science, Mathematics, and Reading since 2000 are shown in Table 2.4, Table 2.5, Table 2.6
Averages for PISA Science scale in four Southeast Asian countries (2000 – 2015)
Averages for PISA Mathematics scale in four Southeast Asian countries (2000 – 2015)
Averages for PISA Reading scale in four Southeast Asian countries (2000 – 2015)
In the PISA 2015 assessment, approximately 540,000 students participated, representing around 29 million 15-year-olds from 72 countries and economies The evaluation primarily focused on science, while also assessing reading, mathematics, and collaborative problem solving as secondary areas Additionally, an optional assessment of financial literacy was included for participating nations (OECD, 2016).
The PISA 2015 dataset serves as the latest resource for examining the connections between student and school factors and academic achievement, particularly in literacy outcomes in Science, Mathematics, and Reading This study emphasizes the impact of Effective School Model factors on students' science achievement, highlighting the importance of scientific literacy in addressing global challenges like food security, disease control, energy generation, and climate change As local issues often require informed decision-making regarding health, resources, and technology use, the need for scientific awareness among youth is critical for fostering informed debates on political and ethical dilemmas related to science and technology Scientific literacy encompasses not only the understanding of scientific concepts and theories but also the methodologies of scientific inquiry, enabling individuals to grasp the foundational ideas of scientific thought and the evidence supporting them.
Chapter 2 provides the literature review of this study Firstly, it begins with the school effectiveness research Secondly, it points out the effective school research Thirdly, it presents an overview of Southeast Asian education systems Lastly, it indicates an overview of PISA
The school effectiveness research provides theories related to school effectiveness research and empirical studies on school effectiveness research are a solid research base and a foundation for the effective school research
Effective school research encompasses four key phases: identification, description, school improvement program, and education system alignment This framework illustrates the evolution of effective school research, beginning with Edmonds’s foundational work in the field.
Carroll’s model of school learning and Creemers’s comprehensive model of educational effectiveness serve as foundational elements for the development of an Effective School Model, which integrates insights from various researchers in the field of effective school studies This model is supported by diverse research methodologies, including Multi-Level Modeling (HLM and MLwiN), Meta-Analysis, Structural Equation Modeling, Growth Curve Modeling, and mixed methods research, providing a robust framework for analyzing educational effectiveness.
This article provides an overview of Southeast Asian education systems, emphasizing secondary education in Indonesia, Singapore, Thailand, and Vietnam to highlight the contextual issues being examined.
Lastly, an overview of PISA provides an introduction to PISA and a sketch of PISA
2015 dataset focusing was scientific, the concept of scientific literacy is operationalized as well the scientific framework is elaborated.